Sponsored by (Tennesee State) Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose. “It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill states.
To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone. The legislation places responsibility on the business or property owner of the gun-free area to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any “invitees,” trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.” The bill does not define defensible man-made and natural hazards.
(NOTE: Also cited by bloggers "Conservative Tribune" and "GunsnFreedom", both of which deserve credit for originally referencing this article.)
The legal option (in this unique Tennessee Bill) to sue only applies to legal gun owners who have a carry permit and were prohibited from carrying on the premises because of the property owners' posted restrictions.
OPINION:
I'm of two minds about this.
First, I rarely patronize any business which has a "no guns" sign posted; if they don't trust me, I don't trust them. Their business, their choice. My money, I get to choose to whom I give it. So, generally speaking, I don't care.
Second, this establishes an aggressive response to gun-free businesses, and because I'm a mild mannered person I choose non-aggression whenever I have a choice.
On the other hand, I don't patronize their businesses, I have no say in their business decisions, and I've already voted against them by refusing to do business with them. Well, perhaps a certain degree of passive-aggression in that I respect their decision and take my business to people who trust me.
OH! WAIT A MINUTE!
There IS no dichotomy in this situation.
They don't trust me, I don't trust them.
They won't allow me to enter, I choose not to enter their property when they require me to be unarmed.
AND .. because they wouldn't allow me to enter armed, I am not likely to find myself in danger by virtue of their peculiar business mode.
(BTW, when was the last time an armed customer who was NOT intent on robbing the joint shot up a business which was "posted"?)
Okay, then "MORE POWER TO YOU, ARMED (and off-site) PROTESTERS!"
Never mind; forget I even mentioned it.
3 comments:
But what do you do when you do not have a choice about entering such a GFZ location? Such locations such as the Post Office, Federal/State buildings or offices, and military installations come to mind. Not to mention most malls.
In most states you have always had legal options to sue a business if you are an invitee and injured while on their premises.
Anonymous 8:10 AM beat me to it. There may come a time when you're required for one reason or another to visit certain locations that are posted "gun-free". (Do you never report for jury duty?)
My question is: Are places like the Post Office - which are not private businesses, but instead operate on federal policy - covered by the bill? I'm thinking not.
@Anonymous 11:39 AM: Yes, but only if the injury results from actions or negligence committed by the business or its employees. Criminals coming in and "shooting up the place", wildlife wandering in and attacking (as the TN bill covers), other customers behaving badly, etc., don't fall under those categories. The proposed bill would change that, for people who are licensed to carry but are denied that right by the business itself (and thus could have protected themselves but weren't allowed to by business policy).
Post a Comment